The respondent appealed to the DOJ Secretary who reversed the chief state prosecutor and directed the city prosecutor to withdraw the information. The petitioner then carried the matter to the court of appeals on a petition for review under rule 43. However, CA dismissed petitioner’s petition for review for the reason that Pasig City Prosecution and DOJ are not among the Quasi-judicial agencies included in Section1 of rule 43 whose final orders or resolution are subject to review by the court of appeals. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which the CA also dismissed.Issue:W/N a petition for review under rule 43 is a proper mode of appeal from a resolution of theSecretary of Justice directing the prosecutor to withdraw information in a criminal case.Ruling: No. DOJ is not included in the list of agencies expressly enumerated under section 1 of rule 43 and does not perform quasi-judicial function. However the exclusion of the DOJ from thelist is deliberate, being in consonance with the constitutional power of control lodged in the president over executive departments, bureaus and offices. Being thus under the control of the President, the secretary of justice or to be precise, his decision is subject to review of the former. In fine, remedy from the decision of the secretary of justice should be to the president,instead of the CA, under the establish principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies.
Phillips Seafood Corp. v. Board of InvestmentsG.R. No. 175787 February 4, 2009FACTS:On May 4, 2000, petitionerPhillips Seafood Masbate, Inc. filed for an application for an Income Tax Holiday(ITH) for the taxable year 1999, which covered its crabmeat and processed fish products. PS Masbate then changed its corporate name to its current name, Phillips Seafood Corporation, which was approved by BOI on Feb. 16, 2001. And on Sept. 25, 2003, BOI informed petitioner that the ITH previously grantedwill be applicable only to the period from Aug. 13, 1999 to Oct. 1999 or before petitioner’stransfer to a not less-developed area. Petitioner requested BOI to reconsider, BOI denied its motion for reconsideration. Petitioner then elevated it to the Office of the President, who dismissed petitioner’s appeal on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner questioned the dismissal, arguing that the executive power of control over the acts of officials under the Office of the President is superior to the appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals over decisions of quasi-judicial agencies under the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.ISSUE:WON the constitutional power of the President to review acts of department secretaries has been rendered illusory by mere rules procedure.HELD:No.Article 82, E.O. No. 226, Section 1 of Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure expressly includes BOI as one of the quasi-judicial agencies whose judgments or final orders are appealable to the Court of Appeals via a verified petition for review. Appeals from judgments